Ballou HS Rocks the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade
Morning Roundup: Black Friday Edition
Photo of the Day: November 27, 2009
Caps Thankful for Varly in 2-0 Win
Thanks to This Week's Advertisers
We were alerted yesterday via the Art Law Blog that the U.S. Department of the Interior is gearing up to change motion and still photography rules on federally run lands. In an amendment to current regulations, three DOI agencies, the Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Services, and the National Park Service, will be authorized to charge standardized fees to and require a permit from commercial photographers who want to shoot in an area under their charge.
Some people aren't so thrilled about the change, including the Society of Professional Journalists, which has drafted a letter protesting the amendments. The letter, signed by 18 other organizations, expresses their "strong concern over the possible negative impact of the proposed rule on the First Amendment rights of a free press."
As we all know, D.C. is riddled with federal land, particularly under the NPS. Rock Creek Park, Meridian Hill Park, the National Mall, and a host of others fall under their domain. And on the regulation's face, the intent seems something we can all get behind: to protect our national treasures from destruction by large filming crews and the complicated and heavy equipment that might accompany them. Much like restrictions on equipment such as snowmobiles, most of us would likely agree that some rules regarding how we use our public lands are justified, at least if we want our great great grandkids to see them the same way we have.
The concern of the SPJ and others, however, is the vague definition of "commercial." Will documentary filmmakers working with tiny budgets be required to pay for permits? Who qualifies under "news"? And worse yet, even if a crew is considered to be news, they won't need a permit, but will be "subject to time, place, and manner restrictions," again to protect the safety of the land and visiting public. Raise your hand if you like vague government restrictions about how the press can cover public issues. (Oh shush, FEMA.)
Image of Rock Creek Park by Grundlepuck.
The SPJ is also rightly concerned about another vague restriction, allowing Park Service employees to deny still photography if they find it "inappropriate." To be fair, this isn't the same issue as the illegal ban issued by a Silver Spring developer that we talked about in June. The rules don't give NPS folks the right to stop tourists from shooting the Washington Monument if they feel like it. These amendments actually seem very similar to the Metro rules that permit individual photography but require permits for any commercial work. However, how many individuals are stopped all the time by WMATA security due to their total misunderstanding of those rules?
The DOI hasn't codified the amendments yet, and the fees and timelines regarding the permits have not been announced. You can read the full DOI proposed regulation here and SPJ's letter here.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
In some ways this has the same basis as the issue that we faced in MoCo (the defense we heard was that the "ban" protected the area from film crews) and the same basis for the issue they recently saw in NYC. In both cases it was defeated, but not without large public outcry.
And in both cases there were already laws on the books requiring permits of large film crews. These attempted regulations instead seem to be based on a vague concern about security, and end up being unevenly enforced based on police/security discretion.